In a new filing lodged with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week, Apple claims Google's Motorola demanded unreasonable rates for tech based on deemed standard essential patents, with fees 12 times higher than what Motorola charged other companies.

The CAFC filing, an opening brief from Apple regarding the dismissal of a FRAND-related action from Wisconsin, is one of the first developments in the case likely to be heard by the court in early 2014, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.

Motorola is appealing the partial summary judgment win for Apple over a FRAND contract and antitrust case leveled in Wisconsin, which was ultimately dismissed without prejudice in 2012 by Judge Barbara Crabb.

A portion of Apple's brief states Motorola "demand[ed] that Apple take a license at a rate that was more than 12 times what Motorola was charging other licensees for the same technology—a rate that was unfair, unreasonable, and decidedly discriminatory." At the time, Motorola was asking Apple for 2.25 percent, a rate unsupported by previous deals. Apple says the demand would represent approximately $12 per iPhone, or "12 times what Apple was already paying to license Motorola's SEPs," possibly referencing the indirect licensing of technology used in baseband chips and other components.

On that point, Apple notes that a previous proposal to pay Motorola $1 per iPhone was meant to "buy litigation peace and move on." The company says Google's leveraging of Motorola patents has been wholly unsuccessful.

From Apple's opening brief:

Motorola has sued Apple in various forums for infringement of eight SEPs (presumably, its eight strongest SEPs) and is batting 0-for-8 in establishing liability in U.S. actions.

In light of this information, Mueller points out that Apple's proposal was perhaps reasonable, especially considering Motorola's litigation track record. Barring that deal, Apple wants Motorola to actually offer a FRAND rate, a bone of contention that has so far been largely avoided due to the possible negative repercussions of a court rate-setting decision.

While a hearing date has yet to be set for the Wisconsin appeal, Apple is scheduled to begin another CAFC hearing as part of a cross-appeal with Motorola. That hearing, slated for Sept. 11, is in regard to Judge Richard Posner's dismissal of a patent infringement case in 2012.

Something is confusing or wrong with the logic in the article. It says Apple is claiming it was being asked to pay 12 times what *other* licensees were paying, then goes on to say that Apple was being asked to pay $12 per iPhone, which is 12 times what Apple was already paying for Motorola SEP's.

Something is confusing or wrong with the logic in the article. It says Apple is claiming it was being asked to pay 12 times what *other* licensees were paying, then goes on to say that Apple was being asked to pay $12 per iPhone, which is 12 times what Apple was already paying for Motorola SEP's.

I think one of the things the US Congress needs to do is establish a nation-wide FRAND database that's open to everybody. That way, when Apple get offered a rate, they can tell the company that on the FRAND database, it is not the same rate as they're offering to Apple.

Any companies found to offering a rate that's higher than FRAND database should be fined. The fine should be high enough that it'd cost the company more to pay it than decreasing the FRAND rate to match the database price.

Something is confusing or wrong with the logic in the article. It says Apple is claiming it was being asked to pay 12 times what *other* licensees were paying, then goes on to say that Apple was being asked to pay $12 per iPhone, which is 12 times what Apple was already paying for Motorola SEP's.

Hunh?

It explains that:
"possibly referencing the indirect licensing of technology used in baseband chips and other components."

So Apple was paying $1 when they were getting the license via the component manufacturers. However, Motorola stopped licensing the component manufacturers and wanted Apple to have its own license - and asked for an 1100% increase.

It explains that:
"possibly referencing the indirect licensing of technology used in baseband chips and other components."

So Apple was paying $1 when they were getting the license via the component manufacturers. However, Motorola stopped licensing the component manufacturers and wanted Apple to have its own license - and asked for an 1100% increase.

Yeah, most likely the manufacturer was charging Apple $140 or some odd dollars for the iPhone, so Motorola was getting the 2.25 percent of that, while Apple was turning around and selling the device for $650 or what not. So Motorola was actually getting screwed, as Apple was making extra money/profit on Motorola IP.

I found an article from 2009 showing the component cost of an iPhone 3GS. The Infineon Technologies AG broadband chip only cost $13 (even if they used a Qualcomm it won't be that different) so Google/Motorola wants 1/13th the cost of the chip in licensing fees. That would be a little over $1/phone. From what I've read previously, Google wants 2.25% of the cost of the entire phone, which is insane. For Apple to play the mobile phone game, they had to use a 3G chip, otherwise it wouldn't work. Forcing someone to license a standards technology should be against the law.